Pro Left Insult Obama Every Chance They Get: Case Study #2: Huffington, Michael Moore

If you want to quibble with President Obama’s State of the Union address last night, feel free. This is a free country, after all, even if the right wing would like for everyone to be less free. But the speech was masterful for two reasons. First, it laid out a bold vision for the future that every progressive should be excited about. But just as importantly, it used the Republican Party’s own rhetoric to frame the issues, which means they'll have to abandon the few principles they have left, to attack Obama. This should make progressives downright giddy.

Yet, my Twitter feed has been chock full of naysayers this morning; mostly, they’re self-professed “progressives” who are managing to twist themselves into something of a pretzel shape in order to backhand President Obama for not being perfect. The professional left have been particularly harsh.

Arianna Huffington, for example, Tweeted the following first thing this morning:

  Arianna Tweet 2012-01-25


A speech that ran for about 90 minutes, and THAT was what she took out of it? And isn’t she supposed to be a great journalism mogul these days? She actually had to take the quote completely out of context in order to take a swipe at the president. Here is the quote in its proper context from a transcript of the State of the Union Address:

The renewal of American leadership can be felt across the globe. Our oldest alliances in Europe and Asia are stronger than ever. Our ties to the Americas are deeper. Our iron-clad commitment to Israel's security has meant the closest military cooperation between our two countries in history. We've made it clear that America is a Pacific power, and a new beginning in Burma has lit a new hope. From the coalitions we've built to secure nuclear materials, to the missions we've led against hunger and disease; from the blows we've dealt to our enemies; to the enduring power of our moral example, America is back.

Anyone who tells you otherwise, anyone who tells you that America is in decline or that our influence has waned, doesn't know what they're talking about. That's not the message we get from leaders around the world, all of whom are eager to work with us. That's not how people feel from Tokyo to Berlin; from Cape Town to Rio; where opinions of America are higher than they've been in years. Yes, the world is changing; no, we can't control every event. But America remains the one indispensable nation in world affairs – and as long as I'm President, I intend to keep it that way.

Yes, that’s right; the woman who has control of a significant journalism enterprise actually had to take a quote referring to American global leadership, and apply it to domestic issues.

The fact of the matter is, America’s prestige was greatly damaged by the Bush Administration, and the black eye that was left by those clowns on the world stage for eight years has largely been healed over the past three. THAT was what Obama was referring to, as is clear when you bother to look at the context.

Say, aren’t journalists supposed to include context in their reporting? More importantly, if someone has to take a quote OUT of context in order to make a point, is that criticism valid at all?  

The FACT is, President Obama acknowledged that we still suck, domestically speaking. And he offered a number of initiatives, in the form of tax breaks for those who bring manufacturing here and the elimination of rules that allow American companies to locate offshore and avoid taxes in their own country.

But what bothers me most about the Tweet is that it actually implies that President Obama is the one responsible for “23 million” being unemployed or under-employed. That is obviously false, and that is what people see when they read Huffington’s crap. The constant negativity and the false narratives play to the Republicans’ major strategy, which is to depress turnout. Depressed turnout makes their solidly fanatical minority more powerful, and makes it more likely that Republicans will make gains again in 2012.

Then there is Michael Moore.

I actually like Michael Moore. I know he doesn’t think I do about now, but this blog deals with real politics, and he only seems to have one foot in the real world. I have no doubt that he really cares about the poor. But his political instincts just plain suck, and much of what he does actually leads to more right wing influence, not less.

He’s made a few silly Tweets since the State of the Union, but this one shows just how important it seems to be for everyone on the professional left to make a dig at President Obama, even when they’re complimenting him. That would be okay, if the dig was actually true.

  Moore Tweet 2012-01-25

The truth is, Michael, that given Iran’s history and their current leadership, war IS an option. It will always be an option with them, because they are not above threatening to start one. Also, if you knew anything about dealing with the Middle East, you would know that leaderships in the region always have to leave the possibility of war on the table. If you don’t understand why, I suggest you teach yourself some history.

It’s a mischaracterization of what Obama said in two ways. The president didn’t imply that war was not off the table, he stated it outright, as any good political leader would with a country like Iran. I know some progressives only want to think of puppies and kittens and unicorns who fart glitter, but we live in the real world, in which bad guys want to get their hands on nuclear weapons so they can sell them to other bad guys, or use them themselves. That’s the real world. 

But read what Obama actually said in the State of the Union address:

And we will safeguard America's own security against those who threaten our citizens, our friends, and our interests. Look at Iran. Through the power of our diplomacy, a world that was once divided about how to deal with Iran's nuclear program now stands as one. The regime is more isolated than ever before; its leaders are faced with crippling sanctions, and as long as they shirk their responsibilities, this pressure will not relent. Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal. But a peaceful resolution of this issue is still possible, and far better, and if Iran changes course and meets its obligations, it can rejoin the community of nations.

Can you imagine ANY Republican running for reelection making such a statement? Again, in context, he DID threaten them with anything he had to do to keep them from getting a nuclear weapon (which is rational), but he also offered them an olive branch at the same time. Yet, Michael can apparently only hear the threat of war, and not the offer of peace because, for whatever reason, he seems to have to bash President Obama every chance he gets. It almost seems pathological to these folks.

When did it become de rigueur for the professional left to say something bad about President Obama every chance they get? They have to be under the impression it resonates with progressives, or raises the “street cred” factor among lefties. But we can’t afford this anymore, folks. This is how we ended up with teabaggers running the damn Congress. This is why President Obama can push forth a comprehensive jobs bill, and Republicans can simply refuse to pass it. This is how we got Governors like Walker, Daniels and Scott.

Our side sucks at politics, and Republicans have come to depend on it.

It’s time we all started putting pressure on professional lefties, and got them to at least tell the truth. Just as importantly, they all know the choice for president will be between Obama and either Romney or Gingrich, so what’s the point of habitually trying to put the president in a bad light? Do they really think putting Romney or Gingrich into the White House will make the country more progressive?  Republicans have been winning most elections for 32 years now; how much longer are progressives willing to wait? Do you really imagine the Occupy movement will be able to convince either Gingrich or Romney to put moderates on the Supreme Court? And who do you think they’ll drag into Congress with them if we depress turnout enough for them to win again? Gosh, yes; what this country needs is more teabaggers.

Words matter. Rhetoric matters. And most of all, the TRUTH matters. And they all matter because the American people matter, and the people need progressives to take their turn at bat and run the show. We have to become smarter, politically. And that means taking everything a self-proclaimed “progressive” tells you with a grain of salt, and check the facts before drawing conclusions. Yes, folks, that includes me. No one is always right; always check facts. Believing everything the professional left says just makes you gullible, not smarter. 

The professional left is not your friend. 

 

37 comments

  1. You have summed up the key point here:
    “Like I said, your principles are great and all, but they become prohibitively more ignorant as they approach reality.”
    Enough said!

  2. I’ll tell you this, Clinton had many, many problems, but he was a lot better than any GOP President we’ve ever had. And he was certainly a lot better than both his predecessor or successor. This is the problem people like you have. Clinton’s not good. Gore’s not good enough. So let’s just screw both of them and get a Republican instead! How much sense does this make. How does helping the GOP win elections help us?
    Just maybe if more liberals like you had thought this through clearly, the last 8 years of war, economic hardship, and corruption would have never happened? You sit there regretting that we never had a President Gore, but have absolutely no idea why this didn’t happen. You are a moron, Steve. And actually, more on the left are no longer listening to the likes of you.

  3. Hello, but the popular vote was so close!
    That should have never happened, Steve!
    The rest of drivel you’re written here doesn’t change that fact!

  4. If Gore’s campaign had been successful, the vote would have not been so close. End of Story. And actually, Gore hurt himself significantly by distancing himself from Clinton. Clinton was extremely popular and Gore would have greatly benefitted from the support.

  5. Look…The SCOTUS did steal the election, but that was because the electoral vote was too close. Gore ran a terrible campaign and the leftwing (as usual) – shot itself in the foot.
    Our side’s stupidity provided the perfect opportunity for the theft to take place. Gore even lost his home state of Tennessee for pete’s sake! This should have never happened.
    The vote should have never been so close to begin with, Steve! Don’t you get that? Can’t that idea sink into your brain?
    Also, if you were to look at the court cases surrounding the 2000 election, you would see that Bush did have some legal legs to stand on. It was not as black-and-white as you are making it.
    The whole point is to get some many votes than manipulation like what happened in Florida makes little or no difference. The GOP knows this – which is why they usually try to discourage voter turnout. And as usual, left-wingers like you fall for this BS.

  6. Oy vey, Steve.
    Only on Planet Simel could barely winning half the electorate be considered running a GOOD race. Gore was a decent candidate, and the election was stolen, but not by much. That is the point.
    And throwing a temper tantrum in the congress — equivalent to doing absolutely nothing — is childish when it means making a bad situation into an even worse one. Like I said, your principles are great and all, but they become prohibitively more ignorant as they approach reality. Once the election is over, there are only so many options available to prevent an administration or congress from doing anything. So if we really have anyone to blame, it’d be only ourselves for letting bad politicians get elected.
    P.S. if everyone says Clinton is a populist, including/especially the experts. I’m curious as to how you think your claim that he isn’t is credible in the least? Are you in possession of knowledge not available to the rest of us mere mortals?

  7. post has no content.
    it is, merely, a screed.
    that is all that it is.
    no fact
    no logic
    merely fatuous insults
    fail

  8. 6. Oh — and did I say bovine fecal matter? Sorry, I meant equine.
    fail.
    This is the very best that yoiu can do.
    no fact
    no logic
    no argument.
    simply puerile and sophomirc drive.
    fail

  9. That’s why everybody thinks he was a populist. And why everybody described him as one at the time.
    Hell, it’s why when you Google “Bill Clinton” the first thing that comes up is “populism.”

  10. A certain cadre of far left progressives (emos) are always stabbing Democrats in the back, and then turning around and calling themselves the “Democratic base”. It’s become tradition.
    You wanna talk about stabs in the back, Milt?
    Well, it wasn’t the hippies who stabbed the McGovern campaign — it was the anti-liberal/business-corporate/Scoop Jackson shithead wing of the party, i.e. the same people in charge of it now. And when McGovern lost, with their help, they vowed that the lefties would never get charge of the party again.
    Which is why we’re where we are now, obviously.

  11. You know what’s fun about giving someone like you more rope? You WILL hang yourself.
    Are you continuing to claim Clinton wasn’t a populist? A guy whose economic platform created 24 million jobs, and started reviving inner cities for the first time in 40 years? You really have no idea what populism is, do you?
    And don’t bother looking it up. It’s too late.

  12. you have to be dumb as a post to not note that he was populist.
    Words fail me, except “wow.”
    McCarthy and Humphrey were promising to end it immediately
    Everybody knew the fix was in, i.e. Humphrey was gonna be the nominee, and everybody knew Humphrey’s promise to end the war was a crock.
    No matter how you feel about Clinton (I probably like him a hell of a lot less than you do)
    I strongly doubt it.

  13. Look, Steve, you moron. No matter how you feel about Clinton (I probably like him a hell of a lot less than you do), you have to be dumb as a post to not note that he was populist. My guess is, you don’t know what populism is. Here’s a hint: Ron Paul was a populist, as were Pat Buchanan and Al Gore.
    As for your “a-historical” crack, you idiot, yes, the Vietnam War was going on. But LBJ wasn’t running, and both McCarthy and Humphrey were promising to end it immediately, while Nixon was promising to end it “with honor. Most of the pro-Vietnam voters were planning to (and did) vote for Wallace, who was NOT a Democrat at the time.

  14. Given the sheer volume of industrial strength mishegass in much of the above, beginning with our host’s assertion that the Clinton administration was populist (a claim that brought a mordant chuckle to sentient mammals everywhere), it’s hard to know where to begin to respond. But let’s soldier on as best we can, shall we?
    1. Once the Supreme Court has made a decision, what do you expect the Democrats to do? Disobey the order? Appeal a ruling that they cannot appeal? Overturn the courts? Burn the motha down???
    Oh, I dunno, let’s see…uh, how about block the entirety of Bush’s legislative agenda, beginning with the tax cuts? Which would have had the virtue of being the right thing to do in and of itself, policy wise, but would have also sent the message that the blatant in your face theft of an election, by a criminal enterprise masquerading as a political party, would have negative consequences for the perps.
    2. 2. Clinton’s approval rating was in the mid 60s. He could have easily won a third term.
    This, in the immortal words of Nick Tosches, is merely another lesson learned from that cherished American history book that taught us that Peary went to the North Pole alone. The fact is, although the majority of the American people were appalled by impeachment and disliked the Republicans for pursuing it, that did NOT translate into them approving of Clinton. There was, in fact, a sizable chunk of the electorate who were equally appalled by Clinton’s behavior in the Lewinsky affair despite their distaste for the impeachment, and who wanted nothing more than for Clinton to get off the national stage and out of their faces.
    3. Oh, our host’s assertion notwithstanding, Al Gore did in fact come from behind, running an unabashedly populist campaign, to differentiate himself from Clinton, AND WON THE FRICKING POPULAR VOTE. Only on Planet Milt could that be considered running a bad race.
    4. And speaking of which, the reason the election was close enough to steal had next to nothing to do with the vast emo-prog/pro-left conspiracy (whose power and influence exists only to the extent that the voices in your head tell you about it) or even with the odious Nader. In fact, the race was close enough to steal because Gore waged it in the face of the overwhelmingly withering scorn of the entire press corps (“Al Gore is fat!” He sighed! Earth tones!”) who — literally to a person — hated his guts and wanted him to lose.
    5. And this one’s just completely offensive: A certain cadre of far left progressives (emos) are always stabbing Democrats in the back, and then turning around and calling themselves the “Democratic base”. It’s become tradition. Hell; what was the purpose of emos storming the 1968 Democratic Convention,
    Because, you a-historical nit, there was an illegal and immoral fucking war being waged at the time, and Hubert Humphrey and the wing of the party he represented were not going to do a goddamn thing to end it.
    But yeah, it was the hippies fault. It’s always the hippies fault.
    6. Oh — and did I say bovine fecal matter? Sorry, I meant equine.

  15. Simels,
    You’re really not doing much to counter the “emo prog” label here…
    1. Once the Supreme Court has made a decision, what do you expect the Democrats to do? Disobey the order? Appeal a ruling that they cannot appeal? Overturn the courts? Burn the motha down??? I mean, serioulsy! Gore tried, he really did, but ultimately Bush stole it and that is that. Right now we’re talking about how to WIN elections BEFORE they need recounts and courts. Is that comprehensible to you?
    2. Gore DID run a bad campaign, with help from our fellow liberals who preferred Nader over him. So they trashed him. Just like Libertarians do to the Republican party, Green candidates steal voters from the Dems. I’m all for a multi-party system, but I also don’t want Bush, McCain, Newt, Mitt, or any of the crazy Republicans to win and wreck the country. This isn’t about feel-good politics. It’s about practicality. Your principles notwithstanding, I’m sure the environment would gladly take the “corporate centrist” who actually cared about climate change, saving the planet, etc. But, y’know, that’d be just soooooo “absolute bovine fecal matter”.
    (By the way, seriously? Bovine fecal matter? Do you also use heck, butox, and darn?)
    3. Are you really suggesting that Democrats should have made life hell for Republicans… because they did it first?
    Really? For real?? For really real???
    That’s just… so… childish.
    Especially since Democrats are constantly asking for bipartisanship. How does doing the opposite help the country in any way? More importantly, how does refusing to work with the administration change anything? At that point, you’re just acting in spite. Sure, Republicans will do that, but I like to think we hold ourselves to higher standards of conduct, working with the hand we’re dealt for the good of the country. Not thumbing our noses like kids and doing nothing.
    4. That’s why Milt says that “emo progs” and other liberals stabbed Gore in the back. (To borrow your parlance.) Because of this attitude that unless we get everything we want — and more — out of a candidate, president, or congressmen, then we’ll just throw a temper tantrum and ruin everything for everyone.
    And y’know what? That’s exactly what the Tea Party does. So good job Steve.

  16. Steve, last one. You bore me. You keep insisting on being right, when you’re not even close.
    1. He was down “between 10-16 points?” The 16 was an anomaly, and it came AFTER the GOP Convention and BEFORE the Democratic Convention. There’s always a convention bounce. From Labor Day on, when people actually start paying attention, the election was virtually tied. That’s TWO MONTHS. He was never really behind. But my POINT IS, progressives should have seen the tie as a signal to step up the attacks on Bush. Instead, they stepped up the attacks on GORE.
    2. Clinton’s approval rating was in the mid 60s. He could have easily won a third term. Gore was not as good a politician, but it shouldn’t have mattered. Progressives should have pushed him way over Bush.
    3. A certain cadre of far left progressives (emos) are always stabbing Democrats in the back, and then turning around and calling themselves the “Democratic base”. It’s become tradition. Hell; what was the purpose of emos storming the 1968 Democratic Convention, but not the GOP? Carter was probably the most progressive president we’ve had since FDR; why did the far left push Kennedy over him, and trash the hell out of him and essentially handing the WH to Reagan? Why did the emo progressives abandon Mondale? Dukakis?
    You always speak in terms of “them” and “their”. That’s quite telling. Typical of an emo progressive.

  17. 4. The election was between an established VP from a successful populist Administration and a moronic scrub. The election was stolen, but it shouldn’t have been close enough to steal.
    Oh and this is absolute bovine fecal matter.
    Gore was not the VP from a succesful populist administration — he was the VP from a successful corporate centrist administration whose President had really pissed off a lot of voters, even ones who were against impeachment, by his reckless bullshit in the Lewinsky affair. Gore was understandably tarred with that brush.
    And his come from behind campaign was successful precisely because it DIFFERED from Clinton by being unabashedly populist.

  18. Okay, he was down between 10 and 16 coming out of the convention, not 20. My point remains — he ran a brilliant come from behind campaign.
    CNN/USA TODAY/GALLUP 8/12 55 39 2 0 16
    NBC/WALL ST. JOURNAL * ^ 8/11 44 41 5 2 3
    NEWSWEEK * 8/11 48 38 3 3 10
    CNN/TIME 8/10 53 39 4 2 14
    Once the Supreme Court decided the recount had to stop, the recount had to stop. The Democrats fought hard for six weeks to keep things alive.
    Good fucking grief — the problem was they fought not at all AFTER the recount.
    Their job, if they had a spine amongst them, should have been to make Bush’s life every bit as fucking miserable from day one of his administration as the Republicans had been to Clinton and were more recently to Obama. You know — because he fucking stole the election in plain sight.
    But no, it was the hippies — and ooh, that’s not the word a gent like you would use — that stabbed the Dems in the back. It always is.

  19. And here comes the straw from Steve.
    1. I don’t refer to liberals as “hippies.”
    2. Gore ran a mediocre campaign, but so did Bush. The difference was, the far right was fully behind him, while the far left trashed Gore.
    3. Gore was never 20 points behind. Here are the polls http://www.pollingreport.com/wh2genT.htm Learn something.
    4. The election was between an established VP from a successful populist Administration and a moronic scrub. The election was stolen, but it shouldn’t have been close enough to steal.
    5. Once the Supreme Court decided the recount had to stop, the recount had to stop. The Democrats fought hard for six weeks to keep things alive.
    In other words, you have no facts to support your silliness.

  20. The election was decided when progressives helped reduce turnout by helping to make Gore look worse than Bush.
    Absolute nonsense. Remember something called impeachment, Milt? Believe it or not, what Clinton did with Monica really pissed off a lot of people.
    Gore ran a brilliant come from behind campaign (he was twenty points down coming out of the convention).
    The Republican SCOTUS stole the election, and the Democrats did absolutely zip to fight, ESPECIALLY after Bush became president.
    But of course, it was all the hippies fault. It’s ALWAYS the hippies fault.

  21. Steve, if you can’t stick to actual arguments, this will be your last post. The comment section is for thoughtful discussion. If you want to push your silliness, get your own blog. You can disagree, but do so rationally.
    I will only say this; like a typical emo lefty, you apparently believe an election begins and ends on Election Day, and that everything that happened BEFORE the Supreme Court made its decision was of no consequence. Like a typical emo, you refuse to ask the most important question about the 2000 election. HOW did a political STIFF like George W Bush get close enough to the estimable Al Gore to virtually tie him, and throw the decision to Florida and the Supreme Court.
    I’ve written column after column on this, but here’s the short answer.
    The #1 strategy by Republicans is always to depress turnout. Lower turnout is the only their fanatical minority “base” can win. Gore did not run a great campaign; I’ll admit that. But progressives should have been pumping Nader AND Gore, and attacking Bush mercilessly. Instead, the professional left pushed Nader and trashed GORE mercilessly. It was unfair, and politically stupid. If progressives had any political smarts at all, they would have understood their greatest opponent was Bush, NOT GORE. If they had bashed BUSH more than they bashed Gore, they would have encouraged turnout, Gore would have won in a walk, AND the Green Party could have gotten 5-10% and had a permanent ballot presence.
    This is what this blog is about, in part; getting liberals to STOP helping the right wing win all of the time. If you think the Supreme Court decided the 2000 election, you’re clueless, and now you know why we call people like you “emo progs.” The election was decided when progressives helped reduce turnout by helping to make Gore look worse than Bush. You would think emo progressives would have learned when the REPUBLICANS offered to help finance Nader’s campaign in 2004. Bus alas, they didn’t, and while they didn’t trash Kerry quite as much as they did Gore, they also didn’t support him to the extent necessary to win, and they let Nader trash him again.
    You people never learn.

  22. Well, it is a free country. They are entitled to their opinions. I read what they write. If they make sense, fine. If they do not, fine. I will make my own judgements.

  23. Jeebus, some times I read the stuff posted here and there’s no other explanation possible except that it’s being piped in from THE MATRIX.
    DUH.
    there is no such thing as the “MATRIX”.

  24. It was him and Nader who gave us 8 years of fuckery and misery, and they want to risk this again going on some emo poutrage?
    Right — Michael Moore, Nader and the pro-left gave us eight years of horror, as opposed to a corrupt Supreme Court and a craven Democratic party, who responded to the in your face theft of the 2000 election by saying “Ah well, perhaps we can work with these Republican chaps in good faith in the future, despite it all.”
    Jeebus, some times I read the stuff posted here and there’s no other explanation possible except that it’s being piped in from THE MATRIX.

  25. What has irritated me about Moore, particularly recently, is his remarkable capacity to pontificate on anything that does not involve his actually getting involved, but will draw attention to him. If you look at his web site, you’ll see a lot about OWS, and various media appearances he’s making “in support” of it. One thing you won’t see on his site? Anything that’s happening in his home state. Since I follow Eclectablog, I’m quite aware of the hash Gov Snyder has made of the state, and the effects of the emergency manager law. One of the cities under an emergency manager is … Flint. That’s right, his “home town.” You won’t see that on his site, or anything suggesting he’s fighting for a change at home.

  26. I learnt early in life that being cynical and opinionated will gain you a self-opinion of erudition. People who have learnt the same lesson will either agree with you and affirm your correctness, or they will disagree with you and affirm your ability to argue.
    Later in life, I learnt that being quieter and subtler will gain you erudition. People who have learnt the same lesson will be as interesting as you are.

  27. Never mind Nader calling PBO a coward for not actually using the words “Occupy Wall Street” in the SOTU address. What a petty little racist turd Nader is.
    And one more thing…
    “Thanks for the article Mitt”
    Oof with the typo.

  28. Great column, Milt. Thanks!
    Your assessments of Arianna and Michael Moore seem about right to me — In Arianna’s case, when you look at her behavior over a span of years, it’s difficult to avoid suspecting that she’s just engaging in nasty dishonesty in pursuit of selfish ends. Mike, on the other hand, seems to be kind of a myopic Eeyore-Quixote figure who can’t conceive of a contemporary, REAL U.S. president (not just a romanticized legend) working toward a real, practicable, achievable peace. So he probably didn’t notice the REAL, hopeful prgress we’ve made, thanks to President Obama, Secretary Clinton, and everybody in the Obama administration’s foreign policy team. And as you pointed out, it’s been just three years since we’ve begun a corrective policy direction. It’s truly amazing to behold, if one pulls away from the microscope long enough to look.

  29. Thank You for taking the “professional left” to task who is under the misguided impression that #Whining is equivalent to them being morally superior & intellectually smarter than everyone else who is actually capable of rational thought. <3 😉

  30. I’ve come to expect that from Michael Moore. Of course war isn’t “off the table.” No one but an idiot – which our President is not – would take that off the table. I might also note that Arianna hasn’t done anything to “improve unemployment statistics” since she went to AOL. In fact, she’d added to them. So for her to complain about the number of unemployed is a case of “look in the mirror, will you?”

  31. Thanks for the article Mitt.
    I hope you get your podcast set up soon, I’d like to see more pragmatic progressive voices out there then the god damn whiners.
    But yeah, they were never happy with FDR, they were never happy with LBJ, never happy with Carter and Clinton, and wont be with Obama.
    Does Mikey Moore have no shame, no sense of recent history?
    It was him and Nader who gave us 8 years of fuckery and misery, and they want to risk this again going on some emo poutrage?
    No, never again

Comments are closed.